>Checkers need to get better. Layout tables are an oxy moron since tables
>are for holding tabular data.
>
>Johnnie Apple Seed
Of course checkers need to get better. One way to help them is to create
a convention for identifying layout tables that don't and shouldn't need
additional table mark-up and should be converted to CSS layout. Do you
have another suggestion?
Tina, David, Ineke, and others,
I started the thread [1] with the following:
<quote>
Please do not include a discussion about whether to use CSS verses tables
for layout. We already agree that CSS is the preferred solution. Whether
we use CSS or tables for layout is not the disability issue, what really
matters is that the reading order is logical when linearized. For example
when CSS is off or not available, or when using a magnifier or screen
reader software to navigate the content in a logical order.
<end quote>
Do you have another suggestion on how to identify the millions of layout
tables that need to be converted to CSS layout?
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2004JulSep/0464.html